SilasBarta comments on Of Exclusionary Speech and Gender Politics - Less Wrong

62 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 21 July 2009 07:22AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (647)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Alicorn 22 July 2009 06:37:19AM *  -1 points [-]

...Is there some chance I can, like, deputize individual (amenable) males who I think have their heads on straight? This would make me feel less like I have to go on being the feminism police because I am one of a handful of people around here eligible (by your standard) and one of even fewer who also cares and is obstinate enough to speak up.

Edit: Why does this apparently bother multiple different people that I suggested it?

Edit 2 to address replies (thanks for the explanations): I was not suggesting that I should, upon seeing a sexism-related problem, call on these hypothetical deputies and collaborate on hammering the comment into oblivion. I meant that the hypothetical deputies would have the approval of me, a female, to identify things that are "insulting the honor of femininity" so that if this identification needs doing, it doesn't have to fall to me to do it. In my mental model, they'd do this on their own initiative, much as [anyone who I would select] already does; they'd just have the backing from someone with the anatomical credentials Eliezer wants to make this sort of call.

Comment author: SilasBarta 22 July 2009 03:11:49PM 2 points [-]

Is there some chance I can, like, deputize individual (amenable) males who I think have their heads on straight?

Okay, anyone who ridiculed my remark about the potential "special class of feminist censors", you may begin your gold-plated apologies ... now.

Comment author: thomblake 22 July 2009 03:25:18PM *  1 point [-]

Did you not read the rest of this thread? EY suggested that one might require certain 'anatomical credentials' (not his wording) to speak up, and Alicorn despaired that it might put an undue burden on her and asked if other people could help.

Incidentally, insisting that people apologize to you is not good form.

Comment author: SilasBarta 22 July 2009 03:30:05PM 3 points [-]

Did you not read the rest of this thread? EY suggested that one might require certain 'anatomical credentials' (not his wording) to speak up, and Alicorn despaired that it might put an undue burden on her and asked if other people could help.

That speaks to whether the feminist censors' existence is justified. That issue is distinct from my point, which is that Eliezer_Yudkowsky's proposal amounts to assigning feminist censors, which turns out to be an accurate assessment.

You may have wonderful reasons for supporting this policy, but I was absolutely right about the implications of Eliezer_Yudkowsky's proposal, when others didn't see such implications.

Incidentally, insisting that people apologize to you is not good form.

Perhaps, but so is:

1) Ignoring warnings that turn out to be correct.

2) Not apologizing for ridiculing someone who turned out not to deserve it.